Well, /r9k/? What do you say?
>>26261943
Don't you mean /r6k/?
>>26261943
>Whoa man, the moon looks like a circle
>Nah man, it's clearly a rectangle
>>26262010
but to me a rectangle is a circle and a circle is a rectangle
yeah its semantics but fuck you
I'm a math teacher. You're one of the kids I don't even bother helping just because I dislike who you are.
>>26262010
WHO SAYS WHAT IS A CIRCLE OR WHAT IS RECTANGLE
IT DEPENDS ON THE CULTURE
I AM POST MODERNISM AND NOTHING CAN EVER BE DISCUSSED
>>26261943
Fuck your relativism you dirty Jew.
>>26261943
It's a nine and a six and an inherently meaningless symbol
There was some autist in the cafeteria of a college I go to and he was spouting the same garbage as the one in OP's pic.
The dude also walked around wearing a my little pony necklace
Say two people see colors differently. One person sees red in an apple, and the other person sees what the first would consider blue. However in his brain, that color is still red. Because they both agreed on what red looks like, even if they can't verify through each others eyes. Even if perception can vary, there is still truth that can be agreed upon.
>>26261943
In either case, the symbol is a curved like that depending on it's orientation relative to other text can refer to either a nine or a six within the culture that uses it.
>>26262028
What you're saying is that a circle is homeomorphic to the unit square. This has been proven.
>>26261943
It's a solid quote, but unfortunately that gay little cartoon just takes away any seriousness or inclination to ponder the statement more deeply.
>>26261943
even if marcus aurelius said that (I don't think he did) you must remember he was just some fat cat king who wrote one book using copy and pasted poetry
>>26262056
>I don't understand what postmodernism is
You can discuss something all you want, you just can't definitively label your opinion as objectively correct
>>26261943
We don't know the context
He could have meant that it's best to assume that things people claim to be facts are merely opinions until proven otherwise
>>26261943
numbers aren't real, think about it, have you guys ever seen a number?
>>26261943
Well like, that's just your opinion, mang.
>>26262249
>copy and pasted poetry
thats interesting considering the book has no poems
>>26262327
Fuck off tumblr
Jinny
>>26261943
Reality is objective. You cannot hold your personal feelings above reality, as reality will remind you that you are in its grasp. The fact is that this thinking has only ever benefited people who can't handle being wrong about something.
Kind of like with a clock and someone thinking three minutes passed while the clock states that five minutes have passed. Your feelings are irrelevant as it has been five minutes regardless, and reality will punish you accordingly for suspecting that only three have passed, i.e., being late to an appointment.
When you hold feelings above the objectivity of reality, you are saying that basically the world revolves around you and your assumptions. No real truth can ever exist and this, as I have said, benefits only the people who are constantly wrong and people who not interested in pursuing any sort of truth.
He's right, empiricism is for shitty fat nerds like hume
A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE
>>26262327
nice deconstruction of his post m8, wanna go back to my flat and j/o to some derrida? Heterosexuality is meaningless anyway
>>26262476
>Reality is objective.
That's an opinion whih you can't prove. The clock example doesn't help either, since whether theee or five minutes have passed depends on your velocity.
>>26262664
Describe to me any possible reality in which at least basic binary (true-false) logic doesn't exist.
Show me a world in which X != X
>>26262698
You literally just described it. Whether or not that's the world we're living in is a question for metaphysics.
>>26262751
Wrong, the statement itself is false by definition.
>Whether or not that's the world we're living in is a question for metaphysics.
YOU CAN'T KNOOOOOOOOW MAAAAAAAAAAAAN
>>26261943
It's a beetle dammit!
>>26261943
Fuck off with your new age druggie garbage
>>26262782
>the statement itself is false by definition
Yeah, by definition, the definition based on postulates which may or may not be accurate.
And I can't say whether or not you can't know, but I think I can say pretty securely that you don't know.
Who /skeptic/ here?
>>26262664
Calling something an opinion does not make it an opinion. Your feelings about my post are irrelevant. The clock we are both looking at, if we were in the same room together, has stated five minutes have passed. This cannot be disproved by feelings because the clock has rendered feelings irrelevant through its objectivity.
A nine would require a support to stay upright, a six, assuming the base was made of the same material as the tail, would be able to stand upright.
So it's a six unless you want to stand there holding it up.
>>26262862
But it is an opinion. Try to prove your notion of objectivity without relying on your notion of objectivity.
>>26262969
It is not my notion of objectivity because objectivity does not require notion, but is simply experienced regardless of acknowledgement of it. The better question to ask would be for you to disprove the objectivity of reality without relying on personal feeling. I can do this myself simply by asserting predictions based on *my* reality that involve *your* reality. If both are objective then they should have the same results regardless of your interpretation vs my own.
If I were to punch you across the face while you were unprepared, it would hurt you, my hand, and you may even fall to the floor, creating a thud. This is my prediction based of my experience of reality which then, if reality is subjective, should appear and feel differently to your reality, which it would not and you cannot deny this would happen based off of your own experience of reality due to it being the same as my own. This absolves any "notion" of reality or objectivity because it uses both your experience and my own, producing the same result.
I can make predictions based off the objectivity of reality about you now even, as you are typing out your responses, a plastic or mechanical noise is being made as you respond. If, again, it was subjective I would not be able to make these statements and have them be true as I'm involving you and your reality in the assumption.
>>26263146
You've effectively just said "I know it's objective because it feels objective". Read a book.
>>26263215
That's a really paltry response so I'll stop now since I'm gaining nothing from this.
I know it's objective because I can make accurate predictions based on my experience toward someone else's experience. If I couldn't gauge someone else's experience only then it would be subjective because we are obviously having very different outcomes of actions, thus having subjective results. That fact is we don't.
>>26262476
>reality is objective
True but nobody possesses the ability to view it objectively as we are all limited by our physical capability and bias to observe and analyze reality
Literally nobody knows what reality is objectively like
>>26263303
How can you determine the accuracy of your predictions objectively? You're not really thinking this through at all.
>>26263330
Actually we do, when we quantify it.
>>26263350
Because it is a shared experience that has multiple confirmed outcomes and the outcomes have been confirmed by two (or more) separate experiences of reality which can then relay that information to each other on a common basis.
Are you ever going to make a statement rather than a question? or would you have to accept objectivity to make one? Oops!
>>26263330
But I'm saying that the ability to sense or view objective reality is irrelevant as reality exists objectively regardless of one's experience.
>>26263464
So if two or more people feel like something is true then it's true?
>Are you ever going to make a statmenet rather than a question?
I'm only looking for answers, not trying to assert my own feelings as truth. I suppose that's the difference between us.
>>26262327
that's perspectivism m8
>>26261943
Sometimes I can't tell the truth from reality
>>26262698
Read Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit", specifically the "Inverted World" section.
>>26262327
But not everything a person speaks is an opinion.
That is, just because something is said by a human being, does make it inherently an opinion.
For instance:
This is the number one: 1.
That statement is a fact, not an opinion.
The whole "everything is objective/subjective because we are living organisms" is a bunch of crap.
>>26263557
I have made a point not involve any sort of "feeling" this whole time. Nothing I said had to do with feeling. It was objective action and reaction, cause and causation. An event occurred and there was a result due to it, experienced equally by all parties involved.
This difference between us is that I know and you never will because you keep telling yourself you can't.
>>26263677
>But not everything a person speaks is an opinion.
Everything a person speaks comes from an inherently limited perspective and always has the potential to be wrong. Hence, it's an opinion.
>>26263677
Read Derrida in general as a response to Bertrand Russel and you'll see it makes much more sense. This is, in my opinion, late-Wittgenstein at his highest.
>>26263707
>experiencing isn't feeling
Who do you think you're fooling? This is semantics at best. You've been relying on your feelings all along.
>>26263710
Just because a perspective is limited doesn't mean everything within its view is objective/subjective, and not everything has the potential to be wrong.
If that is the case, then prove this statement wrong:
This is the number one: 1.
Otherwise get your bunk ass armchair philosophy over to /his/
Sounds like an excuse a post modernist would use when you call them out on their bullshit.
>>26261943
Postmodernism is cancer. Even if facts can't be justified, we still need them to exist or a few decades down the line you end up with transgender 5 year olds.
>>26263768
Deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny -- never affirm.
Useless, useless, useless.
I'm not interested in the useless.
You're failing to either grasp, or you just don't want to grasp, that feeling and experience is separate from reality. Reality works on its own, regardless of your interpretation, and will continue to work on its own based on objective factors.
Goodnight.
>>26263788
It does mean you can't have an objective analysis of anything and can't accurately say whether something is objective or subjective though.
>If that is the case, then prove this statement wrong
Are you denying that you had the potential to be wrong? Are you saying that the accuracy of any given statement reflects on the accuracy of all statements? Are you arrogant enough to think that anything you say is right as long as you believe really hard that it is?
Hopefully you'll answer "no" to all of these and see that it can only be an opinion, whether it's right or not.
>>26263870
>You're failing to either grasp, or you just don't want to grasp, that feeling and experience is separate from reality.
Until it's proven, I can't be settled on it either way. I'm actually interested in finding truth, not just going with whatever feels right to me. If you're happy with believing your feelings, then fine, but realize that your feelings don't mean much in a discussion unless you can support them somehow.
>>26263894
>Beating around the bush, splitting hairs, and still not proving the statement wrong.
>>26264013
>missing the point entirely
Whether the statement is right or wrong is irrelevant. It's an opinion eother way.
>>26264053
Except it's not, the statement is a fact.
That is the simple concept you fail to wrap your stupid head around.
If there were no facts, and if everything were truly an opinion, then why would the concept of "fact" even exist???
>>26264090
I don't know how I can make this clearer. As long as you have the potential to be wrong, everything you say has to be an opinion. There is no getting around this.
On a completely abstract level it's correct but what's the point of thinking like that? Think in terms of the world you perceive and you'll actually get a little living done. Or in our case be a little less depressed about how much nothing matters
>>26264227
Then illustrate how this phrase has the potential to be wrong:
"This is the number one: 1."
The reason you can't show it has potential to be wrong is because it is a fact, and all that bullshit you are spouting is opinion.
All opinion has the potential to be wrong.
Fact does not. Facts are facts. You dipshit.
Don't say another word unless you're going to prove your philosophy, and show how the statement has the potential to be wrong. That is your homework for tonight child.
>>26264296
This is the number two: 1
Prove me wrong
>>26264296
You're still not getting this and I don't understand why it's so difficult for you. YOU have the potential to be wrong. Anything YOU say could potentially be wrong. You can't know that anything you're saying is right or wrong with absolute certainty, hence everything you say is your opinion. I mean this really is simple.
>>26261943
FROM MY POINT OF VIEW IT'S A WEIRD COMMA THING
>>26263448
no, you quantify it based off your biased perspective
>>26264392
>You can't know that anything you're saying is right or wrong with absolute certainty
Except I can.
Are you ready?
Is your mind ready to be BLOWN away with what it's about to be confronted with?
Here I go...I'm about to do it...I'm about to say something with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY!This is the number one: 1It's like you're stuck in Plato's cave,if the cave was your anus.
>>26264574
>Except I can.
You could have just answered me earlier when I asked
>Are you arrogant enough to think that anything you say is right as long as you believe really hard that it is?
Would have saved me the trouble.
>>26264574
"1" is the visual representation of the concept of a single unit that is most widely used in latin languages
You could just as easily represent that with ":^)''
This is all bullshit. I hate Marxists who believe in the destruction of objectivism.
>>26264666
What does it have to do with Marxism?
>>26264683
Cultural Marxism*
Cultural Marxists believe in the destruction of objectivism and everything the west stands for. This isn't a conspiracy theory; you see a ton of this unfounded bullshit come out of red academia.
>>26264768
I thought they were more interested in establishing an objectivity that agrees with them. Teaching people to question things isn't exactly conducive their motives.
>>26264853
No, they're all about "liiike, your own personal truth, maaaan."
They want to impose moral relativism because it's easier to justify fucked up shit, and it absolves them the burden of acknowledging that primitive cultures can be savage, or even primitive, to begin with.
>>26262900
Ironically I found that pretty interesting, but then I thought of humans. We support ourselves by standing on our legs, too. We don't stand on our head.
>>26261943
you can always assume it can be both. That is what critical thinking is, you know.
>>26264296
Ever watch the matrix?
>>26264666
Muh jew boogeyman! :^)
Prove objectivity correct then
>>26264940
No you blowhard. Moral relativism is just a recognition of the way the world is, not an endorsement of it.
>>26261943
Any litfags able to confirm this is Aurelius? I don't remember this in Meditations
>>26263677
Actually, that's just a representation of the number one.
Aurelius was a meme Emperor
Stoics are full of shit
/thread
>>26261943
Wait, is it a fact that everything we hear is an opinion or is it an opinion?
>>26261964
:^)
plenty of content on my comment
>>26261943
This is such a retarded quote. If I turn a light on, it is on, whether you think it is on or not is irrelevant to the fact that it is on. and in your stupid example, the symbol is either a 6, a 9, or a made up symbol. When it was written by whoever wrote it, there was intent and the creation was done as something which is either an accepted understandable symbol or made up thing. Intent is not the only thing governing what something is, just as random paint thrown on a canvas is not inherently art although the artist intended it to be defined as art ever since that kind of crap was disseminated into American culture by the CIA (not tinfoil conspiracy, declassified CIA documents show this was done for cultural subversion of the Soviet Union). The pic is like the glass half full half empty thing; it is not a perspective thing there is in fact a reality to it. If you poured the water in, it is half full, if you poured water out, it is half empty.
The only kind of philosophy not based upon a persistent and universal reality that I think holds any water is solipsism
>>26262010
>to me, just fuck my shit up senpai
>to me, ima give u the illest fade of 2016
